§ Major COLFOXasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the recent hold up of the Bombay parcel mail was not primarily caused by the action of the strikers, who have been wrongfully blamed for it, but was due to the action of a General Post Office official who disregarded the advice of the leader of the strike picket to go on with the shipment of the mail, whereas he could have carried out his duty without interference from the strikers; and what disciplinary action he proposes to take?
§ Mr. HARTSHORNThe hon. Member's statement is in conflict with the reports 1789W I have received, which show that, if the officer in charge had persisted in attempting to reach the docks, he would probably have been unsuccessful, and would have jeopardised the safety of the mail, for which he was responsible.
§ Major COLFOXasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that in Australia officials in charge of mails are required to give an undertaking to protect His Majesty's mails from illegal interference, and to further their despatch by every means in their power; whether similar officials in this country are required to give the same undertaking; and, if not, will he consider the desirability of so requiring in future?
§ Mr. HARTSHORNI am not aware of the practice of the Australian Post Office in this particular matter. As far as the British Post Office is concerned, the Post Office Act of 1908 provides penalties for any failure safely to convey a mail bag with diligence at a due rate of speed. I have no reason to suppose that any officer of the Post Office would wilfully delay a mail, or would fail to use all his endeavours to protect it from illegal interference, and I do not consider it necessary to record a specific undertaking on these points.